'Digraceful Order', 'Dimwitted Judges': Kerala AG Sanctions Contempt Proceedings Against K Sudhakaran For Remarks On HC Murder Judgment

According to news reports, the politician, speaking in Kannur, termed the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment as "മ്ലേച്ചമായ വിധി" (roughly translates as disgraceful) and made derogatory remarks about the judges who comprised the Bench, going to the extent of questioning their intellectual abilities.

He had also expressed a view that the judgment could eroded public confidence.

Extracting a transcript of Sudhakaran's speech as well as reportage around it, the Advocate General records his opinion that the politician described the judgment as disgraceful and made scandalising remarks about the judges on the Bench.

Therefore, the Advocate General accorded sanction to a petition filed by Advocate Janardhana Shenoy seeking the institution of contempt proceedings against Sudhakaran.

The case in the High Court concerned the murder of one Shuhaib, a Youth Congress worker. Th e case, a politically contentious issue, was highlighted by the Congress as a demonstration of the CPIM's culture of eliminating rivals. After a Single Judge had directed a CBI Inquiry into the death of Shuhaib, the Division Bench had set aside the ruling in 2018, which was followed by proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The petition in the High Court had alleged that the prime accused, Akash was close to those in high echelons of power, including CPI(M)'s Kannur District Secretary P. Jayarajan, and hence, asserted that the current investigation was going on in a manner dictated by the leaders of the ruling CPI(M) who "control" the police machinery in the district. It also contended that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's rejection of the demand for a CBI probe was also due to pressure from the District Committee of CPM Party.

After the Single Bench allowed the plea and directed a CBI Inquiry into the death of Shuhaib, the Division Bench set aside the same upon an appeal filed by the State Government. The bench of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar observed "there was hardly any material available before the writ court that could have led it to assume that the investigation was inherently unfair or biased in any manner."

The order for CBI probe issued by single judge Justice B Kemal Pasha (since retired) within three weeks of the crime was termed as a 'hasty direction' by the division bench.

As on March 7, 2018 - the date of the order of single bench - the state police had arrested six persons and recovered the weapons allegedly used for the crime, noted the division bench.

"As is evident from a perusal of the note submitted before the writ court by the State Attorney, the State police had already arrested six persons, and recovered the weapons used for the crime, within three weeks of the incident and before the case came up for consideration before the writ court. If the writ court wanted to get further details as regards the investigation carried out, it could have asked for the production of the Case Diary in Court but, for reasons that are not very clear, it chose not to do so. It did not also grant any opportunity to the State Government to file a counter affidavit in response to the averments in the writ petition. In our opinion, the aforesaid omissions of the writ court, without anything more, vitiates the direction issued by it to transfer the investigation of the case to the CBI. Such a hasty direction was not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case", said the judgment authored by Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar.